Dr. P.Krishnamurthy, Hyderabad vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P.,High ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1747 Tel

Telangana High Court

Dr. P.Krishnamurthy, Hyderabad vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P.,High ... on 26 April, 2024

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1640 OF 2009

ORDER:

1. The revision petitioner/Accused is questioning the conviction

recorded by the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (For

Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda, in C.C.No.131 of 2006

dated 07.02.2008 for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian

Penal Code and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and

confirmed in Crl.A.No.43/2008 by the Prl.Sessions Judge, at

Nalgonda vide Judgment dated 09.01.2009.

2. Heard both sides.

3. PW1 is 'victim'. According to her she was working as sweeper

in Primary Health Centre, Thipparthy. On 03.06.2005 at 2.30

P.M., she went to the hospital and asked about her salary.

Meanwhile, the accused came and beat and kicked her, due to

which she fell down on the steps and received injuries. At the time

of incident, the daughter of PW1 was also present. PW1 was taken

to the hospital and treated by PW6. Thereafter, she lodged a

complaint.

4. The trial Court, having examined the evidence on record

found that the petitioner was responsible for beating PW1 and he

was convicted. The said conviction was questioned in appeal and

the Sessions Court confirmed the conviction.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner would submit

that there is no necessity for the revision petitioner to beat the

sweeper in the hospital. In fact, there was an allegation against

the grandson of PW1 that he had committed theft. Only for the

said reason, the Doctor is falsely implicated. PWs.2, 3 and 4 were

not present when the incident had taken place. As there is no

independent corroboration, the conviction has to be set aside.

6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the

findings of the Courts below are on the basis of evidence adduced

by the prosecution.

7. Having gone through the record, PW1 stated that she was

beaten by the revision petitioner, she fell down on the stairs and

sustained injuries. She was treated by PW6-Doctor. According to

PW6, PW1 sustained one simple injury i.e. contusion of right eye

and two grievous injuries i.e. contusion of right wrist and

contusion over the right hip joint.

8. The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW6-

doctor, would go to show that she received injuries. Except the

suggestion of false implication, nothing was brought on record by

the revision petitioner to prove such false implication.

9. I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Courts

below.

10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case fails and dismissed.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.04.2024 tk